November 9

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 9, 2017.

Plumbus

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 November 17#Plumbus

Regional anthem

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Anthem#For parts of states. (non-admin closure)Uanfala 11:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

regionnation. feminist 15:14, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:48, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

International anthem

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Anthem#International organizations. (non-admin closure)Uanfala 11:20, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

International anthems may include stuff like Anthem of Europe, The Internationale, Earth anthems, gay anthems, etc. feminist 15:10, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:43, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Midas-22

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix (talk) 15:10, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Super obscure. I consider myself an Austin Powers fan and didn't recognize this. It's tagged with ((R from fictional character)), but based on a YouTube clip I just checked, I think it's actually a fictional meteor. Regardless, it's not mentioned at the target article, and it wasn't even mentioned when the redirect was created. --BDD (talk) 17:43, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Template:Age at date

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was withdrawn. With external help I realized my template name was stupid, so I'm changing that instead of the redirect. Primefac (talk) 12:47, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I recently created ((age at a date)), and I think that this redirect should be retargeted there because it more closely matches the name of my template than just ((age)). If there is a better-sounding name for my template, I'm willing to entertain a page move. Primefac (talk) 15:54, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Primefac, I think your template fits more of an "event-date and age" rather than an age, since it includes the date of the event. If someone wants just the age based on a certain date they'd use age or the other age templates. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 20:27, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, you're exactly right. I just couldn't for the life of me figure out what to call the damn thing. Consider this withdrawn. Primefac (talk) 12:47, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Affluenza in Australia

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 November 17#Affluenza in Australia

Affluenza teen

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Withdrawn. Steel1943 (talk) 01:17, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This possibly ambiguous phrase is not a alternative name specific or exclusive to its target. Steel1943 (talk) 15:24, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

John Connolly (journalist)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to John Connolly. It has been determined that John Connolly (blogger) and John Connolly (author) both can be considered journalists depending on one's definition. -- Tavix (talk) 15:15, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is more than one journalist named John Connolly; the American journalist by that name, though there is no article about him at present, is a Vanity Fair writer and arguably more prominent. Should be retargeted to the disambiguation page for John Connolly. I contemplated doing so myself but am not sure if that's the correct protocol, so here I am. Coretheapple (talk) 13:23, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, that's a roundabout keep as is, without objection to swiftly retargeting to the dab John Connolly if the American journalist gets an article. --BDD (talk) 14:53, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that you mention it, the Irish gent really isn't a journalist at all, so I don't think this redirect is correct. I just think that since there is a prominent U.S. journalist by that name (his lack of article notwithstanding) this redirect needs to be retitled, or perhaps eliminated as indeed the Irish one is not a journalist. Coretheapple (talk) 15:47, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes a journalist, though? If someone publishes information that brings scandal to a politician, they're probably either a journalist or political operative. Perhaps both. The situation here seems sufficiently sketchy that no, I wouldn't say the Irish guy is definitely a journalist, but it seems plausible enough for a reader to think so. The IP below may have a point, though. I can't see much harm coming from retargeting to the dab. --BDD (talk) 19:17, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 15:11, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Sweatman (disambiguation)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus , with good arguments on both sides, and the tradition at RfD for redirects like this to split opinions making it unlikely for a relist to lead to a more definite outcome. (non-admin closure)Uanfala 11:23, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The target is a surname page, not a disambiguation page. Peter James (talk) 12:45, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:G7, like all other CSD criteria, is for uncontroversial deletion. If there's an XFD discussion with good-faith keep !votes, then it would not apply. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:29, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 15:11, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.